Discovery hypothetical question

[Qtip]

CA is beig sued in federal, you sent request interogatories first week of july, you send request for production second third week of july.

First week of august comes arround, you call them to see where the interogatories are, they tell you they where not ready if they could be granted extension to submit the interrogatories with the production on the third week of august.

Being the nice people we are, we tell them that is AOK. Third week of august around the 18th or so. Now past the 18th and yet no interrogatories or production, what is the standard procedure.

Motion to compell? Call them and ask them where is the stuff?

[rikers1]

I would file motion to compell.

[Lucy]

Yes I would file a motion to compel too. They've had more than enough time.

[roybean]

In federal court you MUST try to work things out among yourselves. In my district you can't even file discovery motions until you notify the court that you have tried to be amicable and they are bull conning. You should be nice, but always get what you want in return.
If they want extra time to answer, you'll need extra time to amend your complaint and always try to work things out in writing, so when you do go to the court and say "They aren't working and playing well," you have proof that you have indeed tried.

• Email them and ask nicely
  Call them and ask nicely (note the date and time you called)
  Write to them and ask nicely
  email back and be firm
  call them and record the call
  write again and say they leave you no choice but to notify the court

One more thing, call your court's secretary or clerk as there is probably someone specific that handles discovery disputes. Do not call the judge, just explain your situation and they will tell you how to proceed.

[roybean]

One more thing....when I sent my discovery I filed a notice of service and a certifcate of mailing. This way the court has dates and times and notification of what you're doing. You always document what you're doing.

For example:
Pursuant to Local Rule x.x, the Plaintiff hereby submits this notice of service of Plaintiff’s First Set of Combined Discovery: interrogatories, requests for admissions, and production of documents. Plaintiff’s First Set of Discovery was served on the Defendant’s counsel by Priority Mail # xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx on August 8th, 2006.

[hannah]

Qtip, roybean is right on the money with his replies. If you need a template for a motion to compel, I have one for 4th District. What district are you in?

[JayinGR]

Hannah can you pm or e-mail me your template for Motion to Compel? thx

[hannah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayinGR Hannah can you pm or e-mail me your template for Motion to Compel? thx

It's in MS Word format so will need email addy to send to you.

[JayinGR]

I got it hannah...thank you so much

[Qtip]

Well finally get the hypothetical discovery and request for interogatories back. All the a$$holes dis was basically object to everithing with the pretense that plaintiff seeks confidential information or trade secrets. WTF is that about, I am right now beyond pissed.

How you handle that and make them work for it?

[SecretSquirrel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qtip Well finally get the hypothetical discovery and request for interogatories back. All the a$$holes dis was basically object to everithing with the pretense that plaintiff seeks confidential information or trade secrets. WTF is that about, I am right now beyond pissed. How you handle that and make them work for it?

See.. NOW is when you do the motion to compel. Make sure to back it up with some authorities and good explanations as to why you're seeking what you're seeking and how/why they must give it to you.

See if you can entice them into the abuse of discovery so you can go after attorney fees.

SS

[roybean]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qtip Well finally get the hypothetical discovery and request for interogatories back. All the a$$holes dis was basically object to everithing with the pretense that plaintiff seeks confidential information or trade secrets. WTF is that about, I am right now beyond pissed. that you handle that and make them work for it?

You do the same things that I mentioned above; you try to work it out. Write to the attorney (have proof) stating some case law such as coppola v. arrow and that you have a right to any and all discoverable information. Explain to him/her that you are obligated to try to work this out and that you are wiling to discuss this. If they still do not respond, fax them, email, telephone...make sure that you have made a reasonable attempt to work this out and they are not co-operating, then you call the court and find the person who handles discovery disputes. The judges clerk will direct you to who you should speak with.

[Enigma]

If you get the “Objection. Vague, Ambiguous, seeks to inquire into the attorney-client privilege, outside the scope of discovery, not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence,” or something similar intended to throw you off. Don’t put up with it! File a motion to compel, citing rules that grant your right to discovery. Explain why things you sought to discover are “reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence”. If what you seek is reasonable, the court will command the other side to respond accordingly. If you don’t file a motion you won’t get your evidence, and you’ll likely lose your case for lack of proof.

[Qtip]

Anyone has a sample motion to compel that would apply in this case?

[Hedwig]

What district is the case in?

[Qtip]

will send you pm with info

[Qtip]

Fired up an email to def attorney, I quoted the following cases. Hope did not make an ass out self. Basically told him, unless he provides what I requested, I will file motion to compel.

Quote:

Coppola v. Arrow Financial Services, 302CV577, 2002 WL 32173704 Kimbro v. IC System, 301CV1676, 2002 Documents conferring authority on defendant to collect debt. Coppola v. Arrow Financial Services, 302CV577, 2002 WL 32173704 (D.Conn., Oct. 29, 2002); Kimbro v. IC System, 301CV1676, 2002 WL 1816820 (D.Conn. July 22, 2002); Yancey v. Hooten, 180 F.R.D. 203 (D.Conn. 1998). Number of times offending collection letters were used. Yancey v. Hooten, 180 F.R.D. 203 (D.Conn. 1998). Mailloux v. Arrow Proof of prior illegal acts is admissible to show knowledge and intent. Joseph Taylor Coal Co. v. Dawes, 122 Ill.App. 389 (1905), aff'd. 220 Ill. 147, 77 N.E. 131 (1906); _Edgar v. Fred Jones Lincoln-Mercury, 524 F.2d 162, 167 (10th Cir. 1975; Eaves v. Penn, 587 F.2d 453, 463-4 (10th Cir. 1978)(in civil action for breach of fiduciary duty, evidence of breaches of fiduciary other than one for which recovery was sought properly admitted to show intent); Welch v. Barnett, 34 Okla. 166 125 P. 472 (1912)

[roybean]

Looks good to me.

[hannah]

It is always good to ask for the discovery to be answered before filing a motion to compel. It lets the Court know that you did everything you could FIRST before filing the motion and taking up their time.